Elida Vega Terrazas v. State
11-16-00076-CR
| Tex. App. | Feb 16, 2017Background
- Appellant Elida Vega Terrazas pleaded guilty in 2012 to third-degree felony retaliation; the court deferred adjudication and placed her on six years of community supervision.
- In January 2016 the State moved to adjudicate guilt, alleging Terrazas committed a terroristic threat (family violence) by breaking into her son’s RV and threatening his girlfriend.
- At the March 17, 2016 hearing the trial court found the allegation true, adjudicated guilt for retaliation, and orally sentenced Terrazas to ten years’ confinement (the statutory maximum for a third-degree felony).
- The written judgment erroneously included a $415 fine that the trial court did not orally pronounce.
- On appeal Terrazas argued the ten-year sentence was cruel, unusual, and grossly disproportionate (citing Solem v. Helm); she did not object to the sentence at trial or in posttrial motions.
- The court modified the written judgment to delete the $415 fine and affirmed the conviction and ten-year sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 10-year term is cruel and unusual (Eighth Amendment) | Sentence is disproportionate given prior passage of time without offenses and history while on supervision | Issue forfeited for appellate review because no timely objection; and sentence is within statutory range and not grossly disproportionate | Waived for failure to preserve; on merits, 10-year sentence is not grossly disproportionate and affirmed |
| Whether the written judgment’s $415 fine is enforceable | N/A (Appellant did not defend the fine) | Trial court did not orally pronounce any fine; oral pronouncement controls written judgment | Modified judgment to delete the $415 fine |
Key Cases Cited
- Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (Eighth Amendment gross-disproportionality analysis)
- Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (Eighth Amendment context; severe sentences rarely unconstitutional outside capital cases)
- Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (courts should be reluctant to overturn noncapital sentences as disproportional)
- Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (trial court has wide discretion in sentencing)
- Coffey v. State, 979 S.W.2d 326 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (oral pronouncement of sentence controls when judgment varies)
- Taylor v. State, 131 S.W.3d 497 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (distinction between deferred adjudication and regular community supervision; remedy for judgment/oral sentence conflicts)